Austin v. Sisk

Court of Appeals of Texas

Austin v. Sisk

283 S.W. 535, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 1085

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 14, 1926

DocketNo. 1388.

StatusPublished

This text of 283 S.W. 535 (Austin v. Sisk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Sisk, 283 S.W. 535, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 1085 (Tex. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

O’QUINN, J.

Chas. O. Austin, commissioner of banking of the state of Texas, having in charge the Citizens’ Guaranty State Bank-of Lufkin, Tex., for the purpose of liquidation, filed this suit against R. O. Sisk upon a promissory note in the sum of $1,000, executed by Sisk, and payable to the order of said banli:.

Sisk answered, admitting the execution of the note,- but defended upon the ground that it was an accommodation note for said bank, pleaded failure of consideration, and, that he had fully complied with his agreement with said bank in the execution of said accommodation note to said bank. The answer was duly verified.

Appellant replied by supplemental petition, denying the allegations of appellee’s answer.

The case was tried before the court with the aid of a jury, but at the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed a verdict for appellee. Judgment was accordingly entered, and the case' is before us on appeal.

We think the judgment should be affirmed. The evidence, as we view it, without dispute, shows the note to have been executed by ap-pellee as an accommodation to the bank. Therefore there was no question of fact to go to the jury. Article 2185, Revised Civil Statutes. Appellee received no benefit by reason of the execution of the note, but, to the contrary, we think the evidence without dispute shows that the note was executed by appellee at the request of the active vice president of the bank for the purpose of aiding the bank, and with the understanding that 'said note should not be an obligation of appellee. The rule is well settled that the party for whose benefit .accommodation paper "has been made acquires no rights against the accommodation party who may set up want of consideration as a defense to an action by the accommodated party. 8 C. J. p. 259, § 409; 3 R. C. L. p. 1120, § 336; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 700 (writ refused) ; Brady v. Cobbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 802; Simons v. Fisher, 55 F. 906, 5 C. C. A. 311, 20 L. R. A. 554; Green v. McCord, 85 So. 750, 204 Ala. 356; Anderson v. Rheney, 110 S. E. 164, 152 Ga. 418; Bank v. Smith, 203 N. W. 802, 199 Iowa, 1277.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O’QUINN, J.

Chas. O. Austin, commissioner of banking of the state of Texas, having in charge the Citizens’ Guaranty State Bank-of Lufkin, Tex., for the purpose of liquidation, filed this suit against R. O. Sisk upon a promissory note in the sum of $1,000, executed by Sisk, and payable to the order of said banli:.

Sisk answered, admitting the execution of the note,- but defended upon the ground that it was an accommodation note for said bank, pleaded failure of consideration, and, that he had fully complied with his agreement with said bank in the execution of said accommodation note to said bank. The answer was duly verified.

Appellant replied by supplemental petition, denying the allegations of appellee’s answer.

The case was tried before the court with the aid of a jury, but at the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed a verdict for appellee. Judgment was accordingly entered, and the case' is before us on appeal.

We think the judgment should be affirmed. The evidence, as we view it, without dispute, shows the note to have been executed by ap-pellee as an accommodation to the bank. Therefore there was no question of fact to go to the jury. Article 2185, Revised Civil Statutes. Appellee received no benefit by reason of the execution of the note, but, to the contrary, we think the evidence without dispute shows that the note was executed by appellee at the request of the active vice president of the bank for the purpose of aiding the bank, and with the understanding that 'said note should not be an obligation of appellee. The rule is well settled that the party for whose benefit .accommodation paper "has been made acquires no rights against the accommodation party who may set up want of consideration as a defense to an action by the accommodated party. 8 C. J. p. 259, § 409; 3 R. C. L. p. 1120, § 336; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 700 (writ refused) ; Brady v. Cobbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 802; Simons v. Fisher, 55 F. 906, 5 C. C. A. 311, 20 L. R. A. 554; Green v. McCord, 85 So. 750, 204 Ala. 356; Anderson v. Rheney, 110 S. E. 164, 152 Ga. 418; Bank v. Smith, 203 N. W. 802, 199 Iowa, 1277.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W. 535, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 1085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-sisk-texapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack